What are the ethical complications of a womb transplant?
by Michael Cook | 30 Sep 2018 |
In 2014, the first child to have been gestated in a donated uterus was born in Sweden. Although research into uterus transplantation is still in an early phase, many see the donations as a success. But are there ethical complications as well?
Thus far, trials around the world have resulted in the birth of ten children who were gestated in a transplanted uterus; eight of them in Sweden.
"If uterus transplantation is to take the step from trials to becoming a reality in the Swedish healthcare system, there must first be an ethical debate on the procedure," says Lisa Guntram, of Linköping University.
In 2016 a Swedish white paper on altruistic surrogacy argued that altruistic surrogacy should not be permitted. With this as a starting point, Guntram analysed the assumption that introducing uterus transplantation would be less problematic than altruistic surrogacy. Her research was conducted together with Nicola Jane Williams, of Lancaster University in the UK, and the results of the study have been produced in the journal Bioethics.
Some of the issues include:
1.That the transplant can threaten the autonomy of the donor, and subject her to pressure. In the Swedish trials, the donated uteruses come from a relative, in most cases the mother of the woman who is involuntarily childless. Consequently, some close relatives of involuntarily childless people can feel forced to donate, or be actively subject to external pressure.
2.That the intervention can lead to exploitation of women's bodies. There is a risk uteruses might become yet another organ, such as kidneys, on the black market.
3.That the research on the physical and psychological risks facing the child is inadequate. As in surrogacy contexts, little is known of the consequences of uterus transplantation for the child, because so few children have been born as a result of such a transplantation.
Monday, October 1, 2018
It has been a dreadful weekend. On Saturday Collingwood lost the AFL Grand Final to the West Coast Eagles – in the last five minutes. It has taken me a while to get over this. On the brighter side, today the Roosters beat Melbourne Storm convincingly, 21-6, in the Rugby League Grand Final in Sydney. I just thought that our international readers might like to keep in touch with the world’s greatest sports.
These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.
In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.
It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”
What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?
As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.
These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.
In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.
It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”
What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?
As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
Have you ever considered a black market in uteruses?by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
What if the publication of research could be dangerous?by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
Only public-reason-based arguments cut the mustardby Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
A public inquiry has begun into the use of contaminated blood for patients with bleeding disorders.by Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
HHS is conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue.by Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
The Indian government will be restricted in its use of the system's databy Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
The report recommends palliative sedation as a legal alternative.IN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Cesar R. Torres and Francisco Javier López Frías | Sep 29, 2018
It is not inherent violence but a culture of violence around the sport that is troublingBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario